Authenticity research proofs that painting is almost certainly an original

Journals, letters and photographs are still offered daily at the NIOD Institute for War, Holocaust and Genocide Studies. But last spring a visitor brought something completely different: a dark brown wooden frame with a watercolor signed A. Hitler. After months of authentication research, the preliminary conclusion is: an original painting by Adolf Hitler.

It shows a simple street scene of what turned out to be the Neutor (New Gate) in Vienna. Between 1909 and 1913, Hitler earned a living in Vienna by selling self painted postcards. It is estimated that he made about two to three thousand; between seven hundred and eight hundred are known.

The research focused on the subject of the watercolor and two seals (from an art trade and the Austrian justice) on the back. The following conclusions can be drawn from the results of the material research by paper conservators from the Conservation and Restoration Department of the University of Amsterdam:

The origin and the way in which the painting is presented to the NIOD do not raise any suspicion that this is a forgery or that someone wil profit from it.

The subject of the painting and the method of working of the maker are almost exactly the same as other subjects painted by Hitler and how he worked.

In particular, the original seals on the back of the glued watercolor - of Morgenstern and the Exekutionsgericht - form a strong indirect proof of authenticity;

The material analysis proves that it is an original painted and signed work, made with material from the beginning of the twentieth century.

"A historical sensation took hold of me when I received the piece," says Dikken. "As far as we know we are the only heritage institution in the Netherlands that owns a painting made by Hitler."

It is still being examined whether further research is needed. In any case, the NIOD incorporates the watercolor into the collection. The work can be used for educational purposes and research. As a result, nobody will be able to buy it.

On 27 November 2017, NIOD director Frank van Vree sent us a copy of the NIOD investigation into the alleged Hitler watercolor, a document entitled 'NIOD examines the authenticity of watercolor by Adolf Hitler'.

NIOD: "Last winter a woman, who wants to remain anonymous, brought a watercolor, signed with the name A. Hitler, in a wooden, dark-brown frame. Her father had bought the work in the seventies, solely because of the framet, on a flea market near Utrecht, for the mere amount of 75 cents. When he came home and saw the name of the painter, he realized what he had bought. He put the painting directly in the cellar and never wanted to look at it again. So his daughter said."

Alarm bell 1. A with many alleged Hitler painings that emerged after 1945, the provenance history is unclear and can not be checked. As in this case.

NIOD: "The woman had tried to sell the work, but no auction house (Peerdeman and Christie's) was interested She. was aware that Hitler's other artworks have yielded tens of thousands of euros in recent years - or even more than one hundred thousand, but she did not want it in her house anymore, which is why she turned to the NIOD. "

Alarm bell 2. So the woman had tried to sell it first, and when she didn't succeed in selling it, she turned to the NIOD. Strange.

Alarm bell 3. Two auction houses refused. Why? Did the auction houses think it was a forgery? Or because of something else? The NIOD report does not mention it.

When we noticed this, we shared our concerns with Volkskrant editor Rik Kuiper. He called the auction houses and was told that both did not trade in Nazi artifacts, and that they had therefore not carried out an authenticity investigation.

We asked NIOD director Frank van Vree why the NIOD had not checked this. He informed us that the NIOD had ask questions to these auction houses. He did not explain why this was not included in the research report.

Incidentally, that two Dutch auction houses do not want to trade Nazi artifacts, does not necessarily mean that they take a principled position. It can just as well be a pragmatic position: experience shows that on auctions of Nazi artefacts many forgeries are offered. The auctioning of forged material - regardless of the further story behind it - is of course not good for the reputation of an auction house. But this aside.

NIOD: "On the basis of the historical significance, the NIOD decided to accept the painting - at least for further research, with the option to include it in the collection. (...) Additional consideration is that the work is not on the market."

Authentic or not - is it NIOD's mission to determine what will or will not be on the market?

NIOD: "Over the past few months, attempts have been made to establish the authenticity of the work in various ways, and based on the results, the institute concludes that all signs indicate that this is indeed an original work by Hitler."

On the contrary, almost everything indicates that this watercolor is a forgery.

2. Determination of authenticity

NIOD: "It is known that there is quite a few of falsified or unauthentic works by Hitler in circulation."

NIOD: "Sometimes these are very faithful facsimiles, made in 1935 by order of the archive of the NSDAP, which secretly carried out research into Hitler's past and his works of art in particular."

This 'secret investigation in 1935' is based on fabrications of two post-war art swindlers, the Austrian Peter Jahn and the German August Priesack.

NIOD: "The researchers, WH Dammann and Dr August Priesack (who later, in 1983, would still play a role in the international riot around the forged Hitler diaries), had to determine the authenticity of the many works attributed to Hitler. they could not only fall back on the best experts, but also on the memory of the führer himself. "

Alarm bell 5: Dr. August Priesack, also called 'Prof. Dr. ' August Priesack, a Nazi who was after the war a history teacher at a German gymnasium (and therefore could call himself 'Professor'), got his Doctor title in 1929 by a Nazi professor in Munich. Priesack played an important role in 'authenticating' the falsified Hitler diariess in 1983. The fact that he was involved in the authentication of Hitler's works before the war is a concoction of Priesack. In the 1980s he slipped his falsified cv into the NSDAP-Hauptarchiv files at the Institut für Zeitgeschichte in Munich.

Priesack's scam consisted mainly of authenticating forged Hitler and other Nazi artefacts, through issuing fraudulous certificates of authenticity, from at least 1978 until the nineties.

He was with Billy F. Price and Peter Jahn co-author of Adolf Hitler als Maler und Zeichner. Ein Werkkatalog der Ölgemälde, Aquarelle, Zeichnungen und Architekturskizzen (1983, English title Adolf Hitler. The unknown artist), a book with pictures of more than 300 'authentic Hitler' paintings - most of them forgeries.

In the Volkskrant of November 25, 2017, NIOD researcher Gertjan Dikken explicitly states that he checked the signature on the NIOD watercolor in afore mentioned book, that's also known as Price's book:

"Look, on page 15 of Price's book he came across the seal of Morgenstern, just as it was on 'their' watercolor.

One page further: forty photographs of the different ways in which Hitler signed his work. In Capital Letters. In dashing calligraphy. And there, in the middle of the page, his name in letters resembling the letters on the watercolor here. "

Dikken continued to browse (...) And then, yes, Dikken saw the same tower there. With 'Alt Wien Neuthor' underneath. Made between 1910 and 1912. Watercolor. Different style, same shadows.

He was getting somewhere, now. But no matter how well he looked, he could not find another print of this tower in this book by Price, which was considered the most extensive catalog of Hitler's work. "

What happened here is exactly the same as what happened with the authentication of Hitler's diaries, in 1983. Then too, Dr. August Priesack handed researchers falsified material to prove the authenticity of the also forged diaries.

It is - excusez le mot - insane that the NIOD anno 2017 is swindled in the same way as German and English researchers were in 1983.

NIOD: "The watercolor is painted on a postcard of the Neutor, or Neu Thor, a tower in Vienna, built in 1558 and demolished in 1860. That was exactly how Hitler worked in Vienna: after being twice rejected for the art academy - he made between 1909 and 1913 a living by selling post-painted and postcards. It is estimated that he made two to three thousand, between 700 and 800 are known. (...) "

Alarmbel 6: the numbers that the NIOD mentions here come from one source:

This book, financed by the American multimillionaire and Nazi artefacts collector Billy F. Price, had Peter Jahn and Prof. dr. Dr. August Priesack as co-authors. They state in this book, which contains more than seven hundred so-called Hitlers, the number of two to three thousand drawings and watercolors produced by Hitler.

In reality, Hitler's production was significantly lower: he 'only' made several hundred watercolors. According to sources shortly after the war, he would have produced around three hundred.

This alone shows that Price's book contains mainly forgeries. A fact confirmed by Konrad Kujau, the best-known Hitler paintings, - poems and diary forger, who, after his arrest, confessed that around a hundred and seventy 'Hitlers' included in Price's book were made by him, Kujau.

This was all known in 1984. In that year Hermann Weiss (1932-2015), researcher of the Institüt für Zeitgeschichte (the German counterpart of the NIOD) wrote about the book of Price:

"This catalogue (...) must be used with caution not only because it also includes the forgeries of Konrad Kujau, since discovered, but also because of other imprecisions and errors."

The American historian Frederic Spotts (1930) stated in his work Hitler and the Power of Aesthetics (2002) that the book by Price, Jahn and Priesack consists mainly of forgeries; he mentions 'for two thirds'. Earlier, another Hitler expert, the German-Austrian historian Brigitte Hamann (1940-2016), noted in her book Hitlers Wien (1996, in English: Hitler's Vienna, 1999) that Price's book also contains many forgeries made by Reinhold Hanisch.

All this extremely important information was unknown by the NIOD. In fact, the NIOD used an image of a 'Hitler' signature from Price's book as proof of the authenticity of the 'examined' watercolor in 2017.

By the way: after studying the entire matter thoroughly, we believe that the estimate of Spotts is on the low side. At least 90% of the paintings depicted in the book are forgeries.

On the left the seal on the NIOD canvas, on the right another Morgenstern seal, found on the work attributed to Hitler 'Interior of the Franciscan Church, dated 1912. Are both seals forgeries, are both genuine, is either a forgery? Who knows may say.
What is known hower is that both seals are of a type that was mainly used as an advertorial stamp and as a seal for letters, in vogue about 1845-1950. However, there are no telephone numbers on the many thousands other similar Vienna stamps.*
The telephone number on the red seal (letter plus five digits, A 17447) dates from 1928 or later.**
The watercolor with the red seal was auctioned in 2013 for $ 11,000.***

NIOD: "Initially, Hitler worked with Rheinold Hanish, with whom he lived together in a homeless shelter - Männerwohnheim - on the Meldemannstraße. Hanisch sold the works that Hitler had painted, and they shared the profit, but the men got a conflict about that, and in the summer of 1910 their friendship ended. , Hitler's main customers were the art and frame workshops [?] of two (Jewish) businessmen, Jacob Altenberg and Samuel Morgenstern. This watercolor [i.e. the NIOD-painting], originates from the Morgenstern store, as shown by the seal gluedon the back of the paspartout on which the watercolor is glued."

The name of Hitler's buddy was 'Reinhold Hanisch', niet 'Rheinold Hanish' - we'll come back on him later.
Morgenstern was not an art maker, nor an art dealer. Making frames was for him a side activity. He was registered as 'Glaser,' i.e. maker of frames for window glass.

The seal - even if it would be authentic - is no proof that the NIOD-watercolor originates from Morgenstern's shop.

Samuel Morgenstern, one of the buyers of Hitler's paintings in 1910-1913, was active as a glazier, glass merchant and frame maker from 1904-1938. Material with such a seal on it should have been relatively easy to obtain in Vienna from before the Anschluss. If such a seal existed at the time - and that is very much the question.

Because everything indicates that the blue seal is a forgery.

- The seal does not mention Morgenstern's main activity
- The seal contains a telephone number, which is highly unusual.
- The seal only appears in the book of Price.

NIOD: "In addition to the seal of Morgenstern, the reverse carries a second seal, from the Exekutiongericht Wien. Two Austrian researchers, Dr. Florian Wenninger and Prof. Bertrand Perz, historians at the Institut für Zeitgeschichte, independently state that this seal was used from May 1919 until April 1934, when Dollfuss gets the power and the image is replaced by a " Doppeladler "(eagle with two heads). It could be that the seals, which were often printed in larger print runs, were used a little longer, but not longer than a few months. After the war the old seal was no longer in use.

Relying on this seal, the watercolor should have been confiscated by the judiciary before April 1934. It can not be ruled out that this happened between June 1933 and April 1934: in June 1933 the NSDAP became banned, because of its violent political actions and undermining activities in Austria. Which means that the watercolor was confiscated before Priesack and his colleagues (who were appointed in 1935) made facsimiles."

The Viennese researchers have done a good job. Nothing indicates that this seal is a forgery. At the same time there is no evidence for the theory of the NIOD, that the Austrian authorities in 1933-1934 seized paintings made by Hitler. Why would they? The watercolors of Hitler from 1910-1917 are completely apolitical in character.

Hower, evidence exists- in the form of four newspaper reports from 1933* - that between April 21 and July 6, 1933 at least one and probably three forged Hitler paintings were confiscated. This happened after Adolf Hilter had made a formal complaint because of the forgeries.

The person was suspected of the forgery was ... Reinhold Hanisch, who stood in July 1933 on trial in front of the Viennese judge dr. Scholz, in a court that used the Exekutiongericht seal, from 1930-1934.

The NIOD watercolor may be one of the works that were confiscated in 1933.
This too is a theory - but a lot more logical than the NIOD theory. Research in Austrian court archives might yield definite answers on this.

What NIOD claims about the activities of Mr Priesack and his collegues belongs to the realm of fantasy - there's no need to go into that, see the August Priesack-page for the reasons why not.

NIOD: "The watercolor was subsequently examined by the Conservation & Restoration department at the University of Amsterdam. Bas van Velzen, paper restorer, known for his research on Anton Heyboer counterfeits, made the watercolor the subject of his lecture: the work was examined with UV light, placed under the microscope and analyzed by materials. (...) On the basis of this material analysis Van Velzen and his colleague Idelette van Leeuwen, head of the paper restoration department of the Rijksmuseum in Amsterdam, came to the conclusion that the work is most likely authentic. In other words: the 'chances of it being a forgery are very small'."

With all due respect to the exepertise of Bas van Velzen and Idelette van Leeuwen - as paper restorers they can not say anything about who made the image on the paper delivered to them by the NIOD.

At most they can tell in which years the paper and cardboard types of the passepartout were first available - but NIOD didn't ask them to perform propere dating research.

NIOD: "Among other things, the following conclusions were made:
- based on UV analysis the watercolor can be dated as orginating from before 1942
- the paper (drawing paper, no special watercolor paper) is rough and dirty;
- Based on the brush marks (in the windows) it can be established that it is really a painted watercolor;
- the signature is also painted with a brush, not made with a pen;
- the back is made of cheap cardboard, made from wood pulp of resinous pine trees ('braunschliff');
- it has been established with an AXIOscope that the cardboard has strongly degenerated at the rear; it has short fibers and contains cotton and hemp (which indicates old age);
- the passe-partout is of cheap, but nevertheless better quality, cleaner and with longer fibers;"

The only thing that can be concluded from this is that someone painted the NIOD watercolor on paper dating from before 1942, and that someone used an 'old' background cardboard. When it was painted exactly, and by whom,remains a mystery.

NIOD: "A more definitive answer is possible when a sample is made of the watercolor itself, to date the pigment in the paint, and when the work would be detached from the - fully glued - passe-partout."

Pigment analysis will not show by whom or when the work was painted. It it can only proof that the work can not be painted before a certain year.

NIOD: "Based on the above findings, and in particular the combination thereof, the preliminary conclusion is that this is indeed an original watercolor:

[1] - The way in which the work was presented to the NIOD does not raise any suspicion that this is a case of deception or that is done for profit ;
[2] - In terms of theme and method of working, it fits into Hitler's work in those years;
[3] - In particular, the original seals on the back of the glued watercolor - of Morgenstern and the Exekutionsgericht - form an unexpectedly strong additional proof;
[4] The material analysis proves the painted character and gives no reason to doubt the dating."

What the NIOD claims is true. It is an original watercolor. There is no doubt about that. But that it would be an original watercolor painted by Hitler, the NIOD 'research' has yielded absolutely no proof for that.

[1] The way in which the work was prenseted - a woman who knocks on the doors of the NIOD with an unbelievable story, after two attempts of selling have failed, arouses suspicion.

[2] Forgers are aware of this, too.

[3] The Exekutions seal in particular is a very strong indication that the NIOD watercolor is a forgery. The Morgenstern seal does not say anything in principle - a forger who knew about Hitler's youth in Vienna could have placed such a seal as a misleading sign of authenticity. We even know one such counterfeiter by name: Reinhold Hanisch.

[4] The material analysis only proves that the work is indeed a watercolor. Moreover, this analysis did not yield any concrete date.

What is particularly striking is what the NIOD has not researched.

NIOD: "The first results of this research were presented last month by Gertjan Dikken, information and collection specialist acquisition of the NIOD, during a session of the international workshop Standing up to Scrutiny: Authenticating Holocaust Documentation, from 23 to 25 October 2017 in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, organized by EHRI, the European Holocaust Research Infrastructure (of which the NIOD is the pen holder). "

It is worrying that none of the EHRI partners present at the presentation in the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum (Washington D.C., USA), protested against the NIOD claim.

It is rather surprising that the NIOD researcher who was present in Washington did visit the U.S. Army's Center of Military History. There, four authentic Hitler watercolors have been preserved since 1950. It would have been a small effort for this NIOD employee to photograph the signatures on those 'Hitlers', and compare the signature on the NIOD watercolor with the photographed ones.

We were also surprised that the NIOD report did not contain an overview of used sources. After repeatedly urging to provide us with the sources and literature list, NIOD director Frank van Vree wrote to us:

"I cannot answer your question, as we have carried out our investigation without working with such overviews. To provide you with it, we would have to start all over again, as more people have worked on this case."*